• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Asato Maa Sad Gamaya

Status
Not open for further replies.

renuka

Well-known member
ॐ असतो मा सद्गमय ।
तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय ।
मृत्योर्मा अमृतं गमय ।
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥
Om Asato Maa Sad-Gamaya |
Tamaso Maa Jyotir-Gamaya |
Mrtyor-Maa Amrtam Gamaya |
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||

Meaning:
1:Om, Lead us from Unreality (of Transitory Existence) to the Reality (of the Eternal Self),
2: Lead us from the Darkness (of Ignorance) to the Light (of Spiritual Knowledge),
3: Lead us from the Fear of Death to the Knowledge of Immortality.
4:Om Peace, Peace, Peace.


I would like members to share with me their opinion.

Before that let me state that I am not "learned" and still very much ignorant in many matters but I would like to engage in discussion so that some information can be shared with fellow members and members too can let me know their opinions.


This Mantra pasted above at times make you wonder.

It talks about leading one from Untruth to Truth..from Darkness to Light and from Mortality to Immortality.

My question is ;


1)After reaching the state of Truth, Light and Immortality..what next?

Is this really the end point or does Truth, Light and Immortality too need to be transcended?


To a great extent to even know the Truth..Untruth has to exists..to appreciate Light..Darkness needs to exists...and same goes with Mortality and Immortality.

If the poles of opposites do not exist our mind will be in status quo and not aware of other options.

For example just say a planet has all females and no male.They wont even realize that they are females..for them they just are beings.

Only when a male lands on their planet and they see the difference..only them they realize their differences and start calling themselves females.

Back to the Mantra..since one is supposed to be lead from the Untruth to Truth..once Untruth ceases to exist can Truth itself exists?

Truth itself wont have a substratum of comparison anymore.Truth would lose its identity and name.

Same with Darkness and Light..when Darkness is no more present..can Light itself exists?

We call it Light becos its the opposite of Darkness.The name itself is suggestive as being opposite to Darkness. What would we have called Light if darkness did not exists?

Same goes to Mortality and Immortality.

So going by that..this mantra seems to leave everyone "hanging" on to Truth,Light and Immortality..3 states that can not exists after Untruth,Darkness and Mortality have ceased to exists.

So what is the Mantra that tells us that even these 3 states need to be transcended?

Anyone?
 
Last edited:
Dear Renuka,

I think you will agree that the physical reality is a projection of the spiritual reality. As you say physical reality has different shades of reality and thus has opposites like truth and untruth, darkness and light etc. You reach the truth for example by going through all these shades starting from total untruth. When you completely condense all these experiences, you get the holistic experience of truth. So you are still aware of everything but only see them all as a whole. It is not that your knowledge goes away.

Makes sense?
 
I am also not at all learned either in Sanskrit or in Upanishads. Still, like the child saying, "The emperor has no clothes!", I wonder from where the "us" in the meaning (Lead us from Unreality) comes. maa here means, according to me "not", and the verse simply pleads,

1:Om, Lead towards Reality, not to non-existence,
2: Lead towards Light, not towards Darkness,
3: Lead towards Immortality, not towards Death.

All other additions in the meaning/interpretations are simply embellishments which leads people astray and not to the real meaning.

That said, this is one of the usual śāntimantras and will translate as follows, in Hindi:

ॐ असत्यबाट सत्य तर्फ,
अंध्यारोबाट उज्यालो तर्फ ।
मृत्युबाट जीवन तर्फ,
ॐ शान्ति शान्ति शान्ति । (???? ?? ?????? | ?????).
In this blog also, after giving the Hindi meaning without the equivalent of 'us', in the English version we find that word coming in!

Even if we consider "maa" as the Panchamee, Ekavachanam of "aham", the correct word to be used will be "me" and not "us".

I consider, therefore, that this a prayer to lead one towards Reality, Light and Immortality and not (may be my mistake) to Non-reality, Darkness and Death. A simple prayer with very straightforward meaning, but one which has been twisted and complicated, beyond recognition, by scholastic indulgence!
 
Dear Sangom ji,


Gamaya as you must be knowing is an Imperative Mood(Lot Lakara) 2nd person singular for the Causal(Nijanta) Verb Avagam asking to be lead or to bring near.

It's addressing/requesting a 2nd person singular To Lead.
So it can be any number of people asking to be lead by the 2nd person singular they are addressing their request to....be it a single person, two people or a group of people asking to be lead....so both Lead Me and lead Us can be used technically.



If we want to translate word for word it would sound very blunt..

Untruth.. No..lead to Truth
Darkness.. No..lead to Light
Mortality.. No..lead to Immortality.

This is how it would sound if the word Us was not added.

Sanskrit grammar which I know you know extremely well uses very few words to convey the meaning..which when translated into English needs addition of a few other words to make it understandable.

That way..even in Aham Brahmaasmi..do we need to the word Aham in the 1st place?

Asmi is indicative of 1st person singular.. the Aham is actually understood and not even needed.

Brahmaasmi should be enough isnt it?

So why was the Aham added? Was it added to give a personal touch to make it less blunt?
 
Last edited:
Om Asato Maa Sad-Gamaya |
Tamaso Maa Jyotir-Gamaya |
Mrtyor-Maa Amrtam Gamaya |
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||
Meaning:
1:Om, Lead us from Unreality (of Transitory Existence) to the Reality (of the Eternal Self),
2: Lead us from the Darkness (of Ignorance) to the Light (of Spiritual Knowledge),
3: Lead us from the Fear of Death to the Knowledge of Immortality.
4:Om Peace, Peace, Peace


If this is the meaning you get from the sloka quoted, then you are stuck and won’t be able go far in your search. This meaning appears to have come with a certain predetermined conclusions. So it carries a load and you can not get it off your back. Let us take the plain meaning leaving whatever is given in (….)brackets and take a look.


It talks about leading one from Untruth to Truth..from Darkness to Light and from Mortality to Immortality.
question is ;
1)After reaching the state of Truth, Light and Immortality..what next?

Pure love - is the answer. If this raises questions like which is the object etc., think about it and you may get the answer depending on where you stand right now.

Is this really the end point or does Truth, Light and Immortality too need to be transcended?

Refer to what is said above. Answer is “yes they are to be transcended”. For further details meditate again.

To a great extent to even know the Truth..Untruth has to exists..to appreciate Light..Darkness needs to exists...and same goes with Mortality and Immortality.
If the poles of opposites do not exist our mind will be in status quo and not aware of other options.
For example just say a planet has all females and no male.They wont even realize that they are females..for them they just are beings.
Only when a male lands on their planet and they see the difference..only them they realize their differences and start calling themselves females.
Back to the Mantra..since one is supposed to be lead from the Untruth to Truth..once Untruth ceases to exist can Truth itself exists?
Truth itself wont have a substratum of comparison anymore.Truth would lose its identity and name.
Same with Darkness and Light..when Darkness is no more present..can Light itself exists?
We call it Light becos its the opposite of Darkness.The name itself is suggestive as being opposite to Darkness. What would we have called Light if darkness did not exists?
Same goes to Mortality and Immortality.

Look at it this way: untruth is the absence of truth. Darkness is the absence of light. Immortality is the absence of mortality. It is all language and it’s imperfection and its inability to enlighten. While Sanskrit literature considers darkness as a substance and poetically even expresses that light eats away the darkness, in Tamil darkness is not an independently existing substance (In Sanskrit it is “Deepo bhakshyathE dhwAntham” while in Tamil it is “kana irul akanrathu kAlaiyampozhuthAy”. It is just that it is absence of light which is darkness. Science supports this later view. There is nothing duel about their existence. Similarly for a society in an island of exclusively females there is no use knowing anything about males. The females neither lose nor gain anything by the existence of the unknown entity called males. Any valid knowledge (Prama) has to satisfy two conditions. They are 1. it should reveal the existence of an object or agree with external reality. 2. it should serve some practical need. Thus Prama is defined as that which favours the practical interests of life as they really are. yatAvastita vyavahArAnugunajnAnam prama.

This mantra is addressed to the object paramAtman.
It is a request to take away the subject Atman from a certain situation to a certain other situation.
Without taking into account the object there is no meaning to the use of the word gamaya which repeats itself three times in the sloka.
After reaching that desired situation what?- is a question that is perhaps answered elsewhere in that book. I have not read it.

So going by that..this mantra seems to leave everyone "hanging" on to Truth,Light and Immortality..3 states that can not exists after Untruth,Darkness and Mortality have ceased to exists.
So what is the Mantra that tells us that even these 3 states need to be transcended?

Nothing is left hanging if the language is understood correctly. If someone feels hanging it may be due to inadequacy of the language and not the intent of the original writer. The three states either exist or do not exist. They certainly do not depend for their very existence on their opposites (in the language). If they exist they exist. When they do not exist their opposite (in the language) exists to only indicate their nonexistence. LOL. Language is again inadequate!!!
 
Dear Renuka,

I think you will agree that the physical reality is a projection of the spiritual reality. As you say physical reality has different shades of reality and thus has opposites like truth and untruth, darkness and light etc. You reach the truth for example by going through all these shades starting from total untruth. When you completely condense all these experiences, you get the holistic experience of truth. So you are still aware of everything but only see them all as a whole. It is not that your knowledge goes away.

Makes sense?

Dear Sravna,

Going beyond the pairs of opposites it seems to be..getting the holistic experience I am not too sure what it actually means.

For example as you have said "you get the holistic experience of truth"..that would surely imply that untruth would also need to exists.

Actually after reading a stanza written by Vikrama Ji in the Rig Veda thread about creation..its set my mind thinking that should the pairs of opposites needed to be dropped finally??

Would that include even not hanging on to Truth,Light and Immortality too..becos everything needs to go back to its Primordial state finally isnt it?

Here is the stanza Vikrama Ji wrote..
न मृत्यु: आसीत् अमृतम् न तर्हि न रात्र्या: अह्न: आसीत् प्र-केत: |
आनीत् अवातम् स्वधया तत् एकम् तस्मात् ह अन्यत् न पर: किम् चन आस || rv_10,129.2

1.THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider. That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness. All was indiscriminated chaos. All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.

It stated here..there was no Non Existent nor Existent..there was No Death nor Immortality..in fact it does not even talk about Light..it talks about enveloping darkness.

One might wonder why would I want to co relate this Rig Veda stanza with Asato Maa Sad Gamaya..but I cant help comparing it!LOL

Anyway Sravna..its seems to me that even in the term Sat Cit Ananda it is from some amount of duality to non duality finally..that is

Sat..for Sat there is Asat

Cit..for Cit there is Acit

Ananda..for Ananda(Bliss)..there is no opposite...Non Duality finally.

Note: Ananda is not to be confused with happiness..for happiness the opposite is sorrow..but what is opposite of bliss? None isnt it?

What say you?
 
Last edited:
After reaching that desired situation what?- is a question that is perhaps answered elsewhere in that book. I have not read it.

Dear Vaagmi ji,

This is my question..after being lead from one situation to another as you said..what next?
Do we have to drop as in go beyond even that present state we are in?
 
Dear Sangom ji,


< Clipped >

If we want to translate word for word it would sound very blunt..

Untruth.. No..lead to Truth
Darkness.. No..lead to Light
Mortality.. No..lead to Immortality.

This is how it would sound if the word Us was not added.

Smt. Renuka,

I feel I did not consider the vibhakti of the words 'asato', 'tamaso' and 'mrutyor' in my last post and apologize for the same. If we take these three words as in Panchamee vibhakti, then the word "maa" will only have 'me' as its meaning and not the negation "Don't". The word for word meaning will then be —

From untruth me lead to truth
From darkness me lead to light
From death me lead to immortality.


Sanskrit grammar which I know you know extremely well uses very few words to convey the meaning..which when translated into English needs addition of a few other words to make it understandable.

FYKI, my knowledge of sanskrit and its grammar is nowhere near yours; it is just very, very little.

That way..even in Aham Brahmaasmi..do we need to the word Aham in the 1st place?

Asmi is indicative of 1st person singular.. the Aham is actually understood and not even needed.

Brahmaasmi should be enough isnt it?

So why was the Aham added? Was it added to give a personal touch to make it less blunt?

I will see the context in which this appears, in Brhadaaranyakopanishad and will let you know. I feel most probably, the word "aham" has been used in order to comply with prosody unless it forms part of the prose portion.


Dear Sravna,

Going beyond the pairs of opposites it seems to be..getting the holistic experience I am not too sure what it actually means.

For example as you have said "you get the holistic experience of truth"..that would surely imply that untruth would also need to exists.

Actually after reading a stanza written by Vikrama Ji in the Rig Veda thread about creation..its set my mind thinking that should the pairs of opposites needed to be dropped finally??

Would that include even not hanging on to Truth,Light and Immortality too..becos everything needs to go back to its Primordial state finally isnt it?

I feel it is this 'primordial state' which our scriptures call as "Brahman". Since it is Nirguna, it cannot be described nor 'understood', nor 'experienced' through our sense organs, probably. The question will then arise as to what use it is to strive for being in such a state. For the vast majority of us it will be a very depressing state of affairs although when once that state is reached, there are no emotions, nothing.

Here is the stanza Vikrama Ji wrote..

न मृत्यु: आसीत् अमृतम् न तर्हि न रात्र्या: अह्न: आसीत् प्र-केत: |
आनीत् अवातम् स्वधया तत् एकम् तस्मात् ह अन्यत् न पर: किम् चन आस || rv_10,129.2

1.THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider. That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness. All was indiscriminated chaos. All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.



Yes, this is a description of the primordial state, possibly.


Dear Vaagmi ji,

This is my question..after being lead from one situation to another as you said..what next?
Do we have to drop as in go beyond even that present state we are in?

Though your query is to Shri Vaagmiji, let me give here my view. Once we reach that stage of 'sat', 'jyotiH' and 'amritam' there will no longer be any we or I left to bother about. It is like a child who is very much troubled by his school, text-books, exams and peers, etc., who comes home and snuggles into the bed-sheet near his parents — no worry, no care, nothing to bother about and, in our case, no "Myself" even!
 
Smt. Renuka,

I feel I did not consider the vibhakti of the words 'asato', 'tamaso' and 'mrutyor' in my last post and apologize for the same. If we take these three words as in Panchamee vibhakti, then the word "maa" will only have 'me' as its meaning and not the negation "Don't". The word for word meaning will then be —

From untruth me lead to truth
From darkness me lead to light
From death me lead to immortality.




FYKI, my knowledge of sanskrit and its grammar is nowhere near yours; it is just very, very little.

Dear Sangom ji,

Let me just elaborate a bit more so that other readers might understand what is being discussed.

If for the 5th Vibhakti Asat will be Asatah and becos of Sandhi rules it will become Asato when followed by a soft consonant in this case its Maa.

So you will get the Asato Maa as you rightly said.

Maa is also 2nd Vibhakti for Asmad...denoting the meaning of the word Me in English.

So final product is From Untruth lead me to Truth as you correctly said.


But just say even if the Asatah is 5th Vibhakti... the Maa can still be considered a No/Not

and it becomes From Untruth No/Not....lead to Truth.




But just a doubt here...I cant help wondering since the 5th Vibhakti (Asatah/Tamasah/MruthyoH ) is used here....then shouldnt the 5th Vibhakti of Asmad be used??
Which is Mat. Maa is the 2nd Vibhakti of Asmad and not the 5th Vibhakti.



Considering the fact that most mantras are always a "group effort"..for example even in the Gayatri Mantra in the line dhiyo yo naH prachodayat....naH means Us...so I wonder why should Asato Ma Mantra alone be a individual effort and the Maa mean just "me".


So is the Maa here supposed to be No/Not or Me?

I wonder??

This site writes it like this:




ॐ (Om): Symbol of Parabrahman


असतो (Asato): From Unreal
असत् (Asat) = Unreal


मा (Maa): Not


सद्गमय (Sad-Gamaya): Lead to Reality of Self
सत् (Sat) = Truth, Reality, the self-existent or Universal Spirit
गमय (Gamaya) = Lead towards


तमसो (Tamaso): From Darkness of Ignorance
तमस् (Tamas) = Darkness, Gloom, Ignorance


ज्योतिर्गमय (Jyotir-Gamaya): Lead to Light of Knowledge
ज्योतिस् (Jyotis) = Light as the divine principle of life
गमय (Gamaya) = Lead towards


मृत्योर्मा (Mrityor-Maa): From fear of Death
मृत्यु (Mrtyu) = Death
मा (Maa) = Not


अमृतं (Amrtam): Immortality


गमय (Gamaya): Lead towards


शान्तिः (Shaantih): Peace


Thank you.

BTW Sangom ji...my Sanskrit knowledge is no where next to yours..hoping to know more from you.
 
Last edited:
Dear Sangom ji,

Let me just elaborate a bit more so that other readers might understand what is being discussed.

If for the 5th Vibhakti Asat will be Asatah and becos of Sandhi rules it will become Asato when followed by a soft consonant in this case its Maa.

So you will get the Asato Maa as you rightly said.

Maa is also 2nd Vibhakti for Asmad...denoting the meaning of the word Me in English.

So final product is From Untruth lead me to Truth as you correctly said.


But just say even if the Asatah is 5th Vibhakti... the Maa can still be considered a No/Not

and it becomes From Untruth No/Not....lead to Truth.




But just a doubt here...I cant help wondering since the 5th Vibhakti (Asatah/Tamasah/MruthyoH ) is used here....then shouldnt the 5th Vibhakti of Asmad be used??
Which is Mat. Maa is the 2nd Vibhakti of Asmad and not the 5th Vibhakti.



Considering the fact that most mantras are always a "group effort"..for example even in the Gayatri Mantra in the line dhiyo yo naH prachodayat....naH means Us...so I wonder why should Asato Ma Mantra alone be a individual effort and the Maa mean just "me".


So is the Maa here supposed to be No/Not or Me?

I wonder??

< Clipped >

Smt. Renuka,

असतो माम् सद्गमय । seems grammatically correct to me; it will mean "lead me (dwiteeyaa vibhakti : मुझे in Hindi) from asat to sat, and similarly for the other two lines. The noun "asmad" need not be declined in the fifth vibhakti because it happens to be the object of the (transitive?) verb form 'gamaya"; in simpler words, who or what is to be led from asat to sat?

If you see the gaayatree mantra in the (may I say "holistic") surroundings of the entire hymn or sookta, of which it forms part, you will realize that it also contains one or two riks purportedly praying for the Yajamaana of the vedic yajna, but the rest are all like prayers by the hotars, who were, probably seven in number and their prayers ought, naturally be, group efforts using the uttama purusha, bahuvachana. Hence, there seems to be no hard and fast rule that all mantras must be group chants. For example, the Mahaa Sudarsana mantra is neutral : it just prays for certain results, whether it is for one or a group is not brought in.

By the way, will you kindly tell me the grammatical details of namaH?

 
Smt. Renuka,

असतो माम् सद्गमय । seems grammatically correct to me; it will mean "lead me (dwiteeyaa vibhakti : मुझे in Hindi) from asat to sat, and similarly for the other two lines. The noun "asmad" need not be declined in the fifth vibhakti because it happens to be the object of the (transitive?) verb form 'gamaya"; in simpler words, who or what is to be led from asat to sat?

If you see the gaayatree mantra in the (may I say "holistic") surroundings of the entire hymn or sookta, of which it forms part, you will realize that it also contains one or two riks purportedly praying for the Yajamaana of the vedic yajna, but the rest are all like prayers by the hotars, who were, probably seven in number and their prayers ought, naturally be, group efforts using the uttama purusha, bahuvachana. Hence, there seems to be no hard and fast rule that all mantras must be group chants. For example, the Mahaa Sudarsana mantra is neutral : it just prays for certain results, whether it is for one or a group is not brought in.

By the way, will you kindly tell me the grammatical details of namaH?


Dear Sangom ji,

Thank you..so Maa is Me I guess..as in 2nd Vibhakti of Asmad.

namaH?

I dont know if I am right..but as far as I know the root word is namas(नमस्) meaning bow,salutation,adoration,obeisance and its used with Dative(4th Vibhakti).

There is another meaning..again I dont know how far its correct which says namah means Not Mine..Na Mama.. so I leave it to you to correct me.
 
Last edited:
Dear Sangom ji,

Thank you..so Maa is Me I guess..as in 2nd Vibhakti of Asmad.

namaH?

I dont know if I am right..but as far as I know the root word is namas(नमस्) meaning bow,salutation,adoration,obeisance and its used with Dative(4th Vibhakti).

There is another meaning..again I dont know how far its correct which says namah means Not Mine..Na Mama.. so I leave it to you to correct me.


I feel the dhaatu is "nam", Ist. conjugation (bhvaadi gana). If so, there is no form, as per Panini, of a namaḥ coming in. The closesr and most probable is nameḥ, the madhyama purusha, ekavachana of the vidhiling (Potential mood). So, the form namaḥ could be the vedic usage which has come down, unaffected by Panini, till today. If this is true, when people say namaste, it will mean "you should bowdown, to you", will it not?

I am confused!
 
I feel the dhaatu is "nam", Ist. conjugation (bhvaadi gana). If so, there is no form, as per Panini, of a namaḥ coming in. The closesr and most probable is nameḥ, the madhyama purusha, ekavachana of the vidhiling (Potential mood). So, the form namaḥ could be the vedic usage which has come down, unaffected by Panini, till today. If this is true, when people say namaste, it will mean "you should bowdown, to you", will it not?

I am confused![/FONT]


Dear Sangom ji,

I wish to learn more from you..my knowledge is very basic.

Anyway as you say that the dhatu is "nam'..1st conjugation (bhvaadi gana)..it would be Namati(parasmaipada) and also Namate(atmanepada)..as you said..it does not sound like Namah.

May be Namah as you said could be Vedic Sanskrit grammar(which I dont know).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top